Interesting according to Wiki (ok not always 100% accurate) but a Tigerfish had a 750lb warhead and a Mk 21 a 740lb, doubt the difference would have been much important compared to the know habit of Tigerfish for failing to leave the tubes.
Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Jambo_100
- Start date
I'm only reporting the words of an RN officer who was actually on the Conqueror as accurately as possible.He was quite definite about the reason why they were selected. Tigerfish was almost certainly less reliable at the time and I've certainly heard it reported as a reason for the weapon selection but the interview I saw was compelling testimony.
EDIT ; MK8's were used, and they carry 55lbs more charge
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_PostWWII.htm
In any event, the sub definitely had more than just WWII torpedoes on board, in contrast to your earlier claim otherwise.... Start up a topic on the naval forum about the matter if it's of interest (you seem determined to talk about aviation on the RN forum and vice versa)
That was a wording mistake on my part, I did know she had Tigerfish onboard, I meant the only available option was to use a Mk 21. In fact I heard a report (which I did not quote because I could not reference) that they did attempt to fire a Tigerfish and it failed to leave the tube, which then resulted in the Mark 21 being used. Either way there is plenty of evidence that Tigerfish was a dog, the last (last because I believe Spearfish is a success) of a long line of unsuccessful torpedo designs which if the RN had been faced with a foe with a serious ASW capability would have compromised the significant investment in SSNs.
the concerned
Active Member
Just wondering what happened to the harpoon missiles for the nimrod fleet couldn't they be fitted to the typhoon i think a couple of flights with them would make certain countries think twice about any adventures
If you must discuss the issue, take it to the RN thread, please. Thankyou.
Integrating complex air launched weapons is not a trivial task. It's a time consuming and expensive process. The Harpoon missiles would be better off being used in theatre on the warships present there, or at least in coastal missile batteries.
It's not a matter of just bolting them onto hardpoints and then heading off to sink major enemy fleet units.
If the UK has a need to "send a message" that it has a strong anti-shipping capability available in theatre, then the deployment of a surface action group as well as submarine units, would be a much more visible (and viable) deterrent.
The deployment of Tomahawk LACM and GR-4 Tornado /Storm Shadow stand off precision attack capabilities would further reinforce the message that much hurt can be inflicted if need be...
The Typhoons would be much better employed in providing top cover and preventing aerial attacks against the overall blue force capability (by maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters).
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
For those who haven't heard the RAF will be getting an 8th C17
An article courtesy of Defense News
Great news, its could to see with promises of prioritisation with multitudes of cuts expenditure on core needs, keeps that C-17 line open that little bit longer.
An article courtesy of Defense News
Great news, its could to see with promises of prioritisation with multitudes of cuts expenditure on core needs, keeps that C-17 line open that little bit longer.
Definitely a thin glimmer of news in an otherwise gloomy outlook - apparently they reserved tail numbers for 10 in all, I wouldn't mind if they all got optioned.
Ian
Voyager Planes Don’t Work for RAF
Does anyone have more information about this? The article is a little... light on details.
I assume they mean there's a problem with the fuel probe getting a good seal- surely if it was the actual pipes, they'd leak for everything, rather than just one type of aircraft.
I'm a little skeptical, to be honest. If it's just a matter of replacing the fuel probe, it's hardly a "huge setback" for the tankers...
On another forum, this has been described as more of a Tornado problem than a Voyager problem. The A330 MRTT has never had this problem with Spanish or Australian F-18s, for example, & there have been hundreds of refuellings of them.
It was said that it was due to the need to refuel Tornado at lower altitudes than other types, because of Tornado's poor performance at altitude. I have no idea if this is correct.
It was said that it was due to the need to refuel Tornado at lower altitudes than other types, because of Tornado's poor performance at altitude. I have no idea if this is correct.
It's a matter of record that the Tornado doesn't like heights - its engines are high bypass turbofans that work very well at low altitude but they run out of puff at 20K. This isn't the first time the lead sled has had a hard time tanking - when sucking gas off the Vulcan K2's the only way they could get a prod was to plug in burners to stay with Vulcans at altitude which was obviously counter productive and the pair had to drop to 12-15K
So, yeah, wouldn't surprise me if they had to get the tanker to come to them - but that wouldn't be news really. I'm puzzled at the remarks about leaks, because I can't see that as being specific to type.
There's something missing in the reports I guess,
Ian
the concerned
Active Member
then why don't we transfer the tranch 1 eurofighter engines into the tornado surely they would fit.
The Tranche 1's should have more life in them than the Tornado airframes I'd imagine.
Technically, it should be possible to park an EJ200 into a Tornado and yep, that'd get the old girls moving (more for mid to high altitude performance and acceleration than any gain to top speed) Be a bit of a job of work mind. I doubt the money or the interest is there.
Ironically one of the fabulously dim ideas that the German defence minister (his name escapes me) suggested to cut costs was to bypass EJ200 and simply fit the RB199 engines from Tornado. To this day he's still telling the world that he saved money by his stalling the deal. Muppet.
More turbulence at low altitudes? Snaking of the hose loosening the lock between the probe & the hose? There was something about the hose whipping around in the reports, IIRC.
Mind, I'm guessing here. I don't have any real idea.
the concerned
Active Member
As we are still expecting to have the tornado in service for another 8+ yrs surely having one engine for the fleet would also bring benefits.
the concerned
Active Member
Another idea is the tranch 3b typhoons the UK is expecting 48 plus italy has not taken up the options of their 25 3b's if we bought both then we could retire the tornado early make all the tranch 3b's into 2 seeters with conformal fuel tanks
I'd sooner buy F35C and have done with it - better strike capability, will come cleared for a lot of weapons we use or would want to use and is, when comparing full rate production prices, *cheaper* than Tiffy. I don't think we need any more Typhoon to be honest - it's the "dropping bombs and blowing stuff up" aspects we're short of.
the concerned
Active Member
yeah but a 2 seater strike optimised variant of the typhoon would be a hell of a plane. I know its alot of money but so is keeping the tornados flying for another 10 yrs especially with the next upgrade just think its a option.
the concerned
Active Member
this is one area that i disagree with the US i still think a second pair of eyes is better than any technology out there. I heard that Israel is studying a 2 seater jsf we should look into it ourselves.
Israel studying a 2-seater JSF? Well, since the US is strongly opposed to building any customised versions (for support reasons: it doesn't want to be supporting any national variants, & won't let buyers do all the support themselves), has no intention of building a 2-seater, & Israel can't build JSFs itself, that's very odd indeed.
Even if the Israelis could persuade the US to build some, they'd cost a stupendous amount, since only a few would be built. Israel would probably have to cover the full cost of development, which would gobble up a lot of the US aid it finds useful for other things.
Where did you hear this?
Even if the Israelis could persuade the US to build some, they'd cost a stupendous amount, since only a few would be built. Israel would probably have to cover the full cost of development, which would gobble up a lot of the US aid it finds useful for other things.
Where did you hear this?